RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01367
INDEX CODE: 111.02
APPLICANT COUNSEL: None
SSN HEARING DESIRED: None
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 28 May
97 through 27 May 98 be declared void.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The EPR in question was not an accurate assessment of his overall
performance.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the
grade of staff sergeant.
The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports. The
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was not convinced by the
documentation submitted by the applicant and denied his request.
The applicant received an Article 15 in Oct 97 for financial
irresponsibility, wrongful use of his Government American Express
Travel Charge Card, and making a false official statement.
EPR profile as a staff sergeant reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
20 Sep 92 5
27 May 93 4
27 May 94 4
27 May 95 4
27 May 96 5
27 May 97 5
*27 May 98 4
29 Dec 98 5
29 Dec 99 5
29 Dec 00 5
* Contested report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this
application and stated the applicant's EPR was considered in the
promotion process for the 99E6 technical sergeant promotion board.
They further stated that if the Board voids the EPR in its entirety,
or upgrades the overall rating, providing the applicant is otherwise
eligible, the applicant would be entitled to supplemental
consideration beginning with the 99E6 cycle. The applicant would not
be a select for the 99E6 cycle if the request is granted, but he would
become a select for 00E6 promotion cycle pending favorable data
verification and recommendation of the commander (Exhibit C).
The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this
application and states the applicant submitted an appeal to the ERAB
and the ERAB was not convinced that the applicant’s EPR was written
with prejudice. The ERAB stated the applicant did not submit any
evidence to support the voiding of the EPR. The applicant has not
submitted any documentation addressing how the EPR is not reflecting
an accurate assessment of his overall performance. The EPR in
question does not contain a reference to the Article 15, but it does
have a statement about the applicant's facing exceptional challenges
managing his personal finances. The applicant has not provided any
statements from the commander or the first sergeant. The commander
and the first sergeant are responsible for reviewing the EPRs on all
assigned personnel for quality force indicators. This review ensures
the evaluations accurately describe the member's performance and aids
in determining realistic promotion recommendations. Air Force's
policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it
becomes a matter of record. The Enlisted Evaluation System was
designed to provide a reliable, long-term, cumulative record of
performance and potential based on performance. The applicant's
rating chain in accordance with policy chose to articulate his
substandard duty performance on his evaluation. Therefore, based on
the evidence submitted they recommend denying the applicant’s request.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
Upon review of the Air Force evaluations the applicant submitted
additional letters of support from the commander and the first
sergeant.
The applicant feels based on his accomplishments during the rating
period that this EPR should be voided. He states his performance
before and after the EPR in question reflect his abilities,
dedication, and professionalism.
He was a new single father and had to face some unforeseen financial
challenges and made an inappropriate choice in trying to resolve the
situation. He goes on to state that in most instances of this kind
the member is removed from special duty assignment, but with the many
recommendations he received, he was retained due to his work ethics,
his accomplishments and his determination to excel (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are
unpersuaded that relief should be granted. Applicant’s contentions
are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the offices of the Air Force. The applicant did not provide any
evidence as to why the contested report was not an accurate reflection
of his performance. In accordance with Air Force policy an evaluation
report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter or record.
Each evaluator has the obligation when writing the performance report
to consider any incidents of substandard duty performance and the
significance of the substandard performance in assessing the service
member's overall performance and potential. We therefore adopt the
Air Force's rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice. Hence, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice;
that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 8 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603.
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member
Mr. Dale O. Jackson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 May 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 22 May 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 5 Jun 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
Exhibit F. Applicant's Response, dated 11 Jul 01.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01006
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01006 INDEX NUMBER: 111.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: All Enlisted Evaluation Reports (EPRs) rendered on him beginning with the report closing 24 Feb 94 and ending with the report closing 24 Jan 00 be voided and removed from his records. While...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotions & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and stated the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 99E6 to Technical Sergeant. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, Directorate of Personnel Program Management,...
TSgt O--- was removed as his supervisor in November 1997. The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed applicant’s request and states that provided he is otherwise eligible, if the 4 Jan 98 EPR were to be voided he would not become a selectee for the 99E6 promotion cycle. The applicant has established that a possible conflict existed between himself and the rater on the report closing 4 January 1998.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02492 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 3 Mar 99 through 14 Oct 99 be declared void and removed from his records and restoration of his promotion to technical sergeant from the 99E6 promotion cycle, including back...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 98E8 to senior master sergeant (E-8), promotions effective Apr 98 - Mar 99. The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, stated that the applicant included a letter of support from his rater, which reiterates Air Force...
Although the applicant did not submit a request to remove the EPR until after the convening of the 00E9 Evaluation Board, DPPPWB believes the circumstances of his case would warrant supplemental promotion consideration if the Board approves his request. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E6 to technical sergeant (E-6), promotions effective Aug 97 - Jul 98. It is noted that the applicant will become a selectee for promotion during this cycle if the Board grants his request, pending a favorable data verification check and the recommendation of...
In support of his appeal, the applicant submits copies of his two earlier appeals to the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) under AFI 3 6 - 2 4 0 1 , with reaccomplished EPRs submitted to the E m . A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Evaluation Procedures Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed the application and recommends applicant's request be denied. After reviewing the documentation submitted with this application, it appears the applicant was rated...
After reviewing the supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, we believe that some doubt exists as to whether the rater and indorser were biased in their assessment of applicant’s performance due to a possible personality conflict between the applicant and these evaluators. Further, the statement from the applicant’s former commander, during a portion of the contested time period, reveals that personalities possibly played a part in the ratings on the contested report. TERRY A....
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed this application and indicated that while the applicant believes the ratings and comments on the EPR are inconsistent with her prior and subsequent evaluations, that does not render the report erroneous or unjust. DPPPEP does not believe that a personality conflict existed between the applicant and the rater. A complete copy of their evaluation is...